Housing Authority Board of Commissioners - Regular Meeting

Item two is roll call. Commissioner Marianne Pikes? Present. Commissioner LaJuanne Kim? Present. Vice President Leroy? Lindo?

Present.

President Doug Shoemaker? Present. Item three is the acknowledgment of the Ramaytush Ohlone community.

Okay. The Housing Authority of the City and County of San Francisco acknowledges that we are in the unceded ancestral homeland of the Ramatushaloni, who are the original inhabitants of the San Francisco Peninsula. As the indigenous stewards of this land and in accordance with their traditions, the Ramatushaloni have never ceded, lost, nor forgotten their responsibilities of the caretakers of this place, as well as for all people who reside in their traditional territory. As guests, we recognize that we benefit from living and working on their traditional homeland. We wish to pay our respects by acknowledging the ancestors, elders, and relatives of the Ramatishaloni community and by affirming their sovereign rights as first people.

Item four is the president's report. President Shoemaker, do you have anything to report?

I do not have anything to report, although I wish to acknowledge that this is the last meeting of Vice President Lindo. And at the end of the meeting, I hope that we can spend a minute appreciating his service to this commission and to the city.

Thank you, President. Next item is number five, general public comments. Please note that this portion of the agenda is not intended for debate or discussion with the commissioner's staff. Please simply state your business or the matter you wish the commissioner's staff to be made aware of. It is not appropriate for commissioners to engage in a debate or respond to issues not properly set in a publicly noticed meeting agenda. If you have any questions or would like to bring a matter to the commission's attention, please send your communication via email to sfhapubliccomment at sfha.org.

It's Chris Quirk-Klein, and I also go by Sergeant Klein of the United States Marine Corps. I just had a hearing with the housing authority. And the long story short, we were gathering information to figure out what was happening to people in housing. So here's part of my conclusion of my hearing. After a comprehensive evaluation of the documents provided, the preponderance of the evidence, the decision to deny the reasonable accommodation request is upheld. I gave proof beyond a reasonable doubt. I'm an investigator by trade, 30 years of experience. The second part, the reasonable accommodation request for the authority to turn off the audio on surveillance cameras that are interfering with Mr. Klein's sleep was denied because it was outside the authority's jurisdiction. That is not true. Having audio turned on cameras is a crime. The reasonable accommodation request for the authority to stop utilizing the one system and their daily processes is denied because it is a fundamental alteration of the programming. They basically admitted that that was part of an operation system. And that was a violation of US Code 3631 in 1983. We don't want to go that route. We are trying to work with housing because there's a lot of issues. There's a lot of people that are causing health crisis within housing. We are trying to work with everyone involved. I'm working with the Marine Corps Task Force here. But the last part is very telling. Also, Mr. Klein did not provide the authority with the name and contact information of the medical care professional. That's a HIPAA violation. and their interactive process and was unable to provide an identifiable connection or nexus between the individual's disability and their reasonable accommodation, et cetera, et cetera. I'm going to provide a copy of this to the commission. Again, I'm available to discuss this offline. I will reach out to the commission, as will the Marine Corps and the task force. Thank you.

We have one speaker for Margaret McNulty.

Hi, good afternoon. Good afternoon. I'm sorry to hear about you leaving, Frank. Margaret McNulty, speaking to you as the president of 1760 Bush Street. And I have a problem with the cameras that are there that are supposed to protect against theft. Why we as tenants aren't allowed to view them, even if it's like outside people. Someone took off with my bike last night in the middle of the night, and luckily the security guard grabbed them on the corner, and it was saved from being taken. But I've been approached by a couple tenants that say their mail has been stolen and that they can't find it. I think we have a right to see who steals from us, but just on a personal note. Also, the same or better during construction, when the transition was happening in 2016, we were always promised the same or better. But our patio that used to have a lovely lush garden now looks like Trump did to the White House. And it's not the same or better. And I wonder if it's too late to do anything about that. Thank you.

Do we have any other general public comment in the room or online via Zoom? General public comment is now closed. Item 6 is a tenant representative report. Any members of the Public Housing Tenant Association or citywide council senior disabled that would like to give a report to the board? We can now open for public comment regarding item 6. Is there any public comment regarding item 6? Public comment for item 6 is now closed. Moving on to item 7, regular business consent agenda. We have two items. Item 7A is a commissioned special meeting minutes of August 4, 2025. Item 7B is a commissioned special meeting minutes of September 12, 2025. Commissioners, is there any else to add to item 7? We can now open for public comments regarding item 7. Do we have any public comments regarding item 7 in the room or online? I see a hand raised on Zoom. Michael? You're unmuted, and you have two minutes to give public comment for item seven. Michael, if you're speaking, we are unable to hear you. Michael, there might be some technical difficulties, but we are unable to hear you in commission. Okay, Michael, if possible, we may get back to you, but we are moving on. Right.

If he's able to call back in later, we can always take him as a public comment out of turn just so we get technical issues right.

Understood. Thank you. We can now close for public comment regarding item 7. Item 8 is regular business action items. We have five action items tonight. Item A is a resolution of the Housing Authority of the City and County of San Francisco approving and authorizing the acting executive director to enter into that Second Amendment to Mixed Finance Amendment to Consolidated Annual Contribution Contract for Plaza East Apartments between the authority and the US Department of Housing and Urban Development, which provides for the withdrawal of MBS Urban Development Company as a developer general partner from Plaza East Associates. the owner of Plaza East Apartments, and the admission of SFHA Housing Corporation as a substitute developer general partner of Plaza East Associates, and providing consent to the change in general partner as described above. This is presented by Zawadi Lange, project administrator, and SFHA, sorry, FHGov TV, we have a presentation for this.

Mike, can you do it? Hello, commissioners. For a little bit of background, Plaza East Associates LP is a California limited partnership that was formed to develop, operate, and operate the Plaza East Apartments by utilizing a HOPE VI implementation grant and low income housing tax credits. The Plaza East Apartments is owned by the partnership and consists of a total of 193 units, which are 100% public housing and tax credit units operating at or below 60% of the area median income. At the time of construction of the project, the partnership consisted of two general partners, MBA Urban Development Company, which is an affiliate of McCormick Baron Salazar as a developer general partner with a 0.99% interest in the partnership, and Plaza East Housing Corporation, which is an affiliate of the authority as the managing general partner with a 0.1% interest in the partnership. And the limited partners consisted of the tax credit investors Sun America Housing Fund 893 and SLP Housing One LLC with a 99% interest in the partnership collectively. In 2018, at the end of the tax credit compliance period, the investors withdrew from the partnership and were replaced by Plaza East Housing Corporation on an interim basis to prevent the limited partnership from dissolving as a matter of law until the project could be refinanced with a new low-income tax credit housing investor. To this point, that has not occurred. So as a result, at the moment, the partnership's current ownership interest consists of Mudco as the developer general partner with the 0.99% interest. And then Plaza East Housing Corporation is the managing general partner as well as the limited partner. So it essentially has 99.01% interest in the partnership. MudCo has decided that it's in the best interest of the residents of Plaza East to discontinue its interest in the ownership entity and all interests within the project. They formally requested to withdraw from the ownership entity in September 18 of 2024 in a letter to the authority. At that time, the authority did seek HUD approval, which is a part of the requirements of the ground lease, which the housing authority is the lessor to the land that Plaza East is built on. um and then following hud's directions on what we needed to provide to effectuate the withdrawal we have completed that process with hud and now we are seeking board approval to allow for the withdrawal of mud coat and the substitution of sfha housing corporation which is another affiliate of the housing authority to step in as a substitute developer general partner until such time that the authority and the city and county of San Francisco are able to bring in a new developer as well as a new low-income housing tax credit investor. Yes. So I guess at this point, I'll just stop right there and ask if there are any questions. as far as what we're trying to do.

I think just for the benefit of the public and for the residents that may be here from Plaza East or watching at home, just confirm whether this change in the ownership structure in any way affects the living conditions or legal rights of the residents at Plaza East

It does not affect the living conditions or the legal rights of the residents of Plaza East. And that's the main reason why we are doing this particular substitution, so that the ownership entity can remain. And otherwise, it would dissolve as a matter of law, since the Plaza East Housing Corp can't be on both sides of this. That's why we want to substitute our other affiliate, hold onto it. Everything stays exactly the same for the residents, Yeah, so no, nothing's going to change at this moment.

OK. And then the other question I think that we've discussed briefly at a prior meeting, but just again for the viewing public is, does this in any way bring, and maybe this is a question again for councils, like, does this in any way bring additional liabilities or obligations to the housing authority? It's my understanding that this is an affiliate, but we are nonetheless insulated from additional liabilities as the public entity. Is that correct, Mr. Crute?

It should result in an increase in livelihoods.

Great. I know we've discussed this previously, but because we're the commissioners, but it's also because there are people in the audience and others that are trying to understand this issue. And Plaza East has had more than its share of challenges. And I just want to make sure that we're being really clear and as transparent as we possibly can be as we move forward with trying to figure out how to address all of the issues that the residents of Plaza East have brought forward.

Yes, now like council said, if anything, this is definitely giving the housing authority more visibility into what's going on at Plaza than we had before. The property, and through the partnership, was primarily overseen by the developer general partner as the asset manager. So with them out, the housing authority and the two housing authority affiliates in, the housing authority definitely has a heightened level of visibility into what's going on. And so we are much more active in the changes that we're bringing to PLOSM.

Thank you. Other questions from commissioners?

I don't have a question, but I did check with counsel and just want to sort of note publicly. I have a role on the corporation through the housing authority appointment and confirmed that there was no conflict in voting for this. I don't know if, counsel, you are familiar with the issue, but just want to and just to make sure that it is OK for me to vote on this matter, given that I sit also on the corporation.

Just clarifying, the affiliate corporation is what you mean in this sense?

Yes, the affiliate corporation, yes.

OK, other questions from commissioners?

There's no additional comments from commissioners. We can move to public comment for item 8A. Is there any public comment for 8A in the room or online? OK, moving on to item 8B, which is the resolution approving the housing authority.

We have to vote. We need to vote on each of these items. It's OK. Can I get a motion on 8A?

Motion to approve.

I second. Roll call vote. Commissioner Pikes. Aye. Commissioner Kim. Aye. Vice President Lindo. Aye. President Shoemaker. Aye. So moved. Thank you. Now moving on to item 8B.

Chris, if we could just go back and take a vote on item 7A and B, the consent agenda. I don't think we actually did that.

Okay. I vote on item 7A and 7B. Can I get a motion?

Motion to approve.

I second. I second. Commissioner Pikes?

Aye.

Commissioner Kim?

Yes.

Vice President Lindo? Yes. President Shoemaker? Yes. Now moving on to item 8B, which is a resolution approving the Housing Authority of the City and County of San Francisco's operating budget for the fiscal year ending in September 30, 2026. And this is presented by Roy Lobo, budget manager of the Housing Authority. Hi. And SFGov TV, we do have slides.

Thank you, Commissioners, and good evening. Today I'll be presenting the operating budget for the San Francisco Housing Authority for fiscal year 2026. I'll try to keep this short. This is rather a lengthy presentation. As we are covering today more than just the operating budget, we'll cover the entire budget for SFHA. Going to the index slide. So to give you an idea of what we'll be discussing today, obviously we'll start off with our strategic vision and mission. We'll give you the program overview of all the different programs we at SFHA include. We'll talk about the federal budget at the national level, what are the outlook and the risk that are associated with each of those budgets. We'll then go through the operating budget forecast that we have. We'll dive down into the operating budget by program. And lastly, we'll cover the staffing. Just briefly on the Housing Authority's vision statement. Next slide, please. So the Housing Authority, it's our policy to establish housing policies so residents feel connected to thriving communities, but also given the opportunity to move up in the economic ladder. And we do that through two programs that we have. We have the FSS program, which allows people to actively engage in work and be able to become independent, and also the home ownership program, which allows them to move on from the voucher program. The last one is also our mission statement. And in the mission statement, as I look at this, the central question that I always want to answer with our mission statement is, how can we use our budget and our excess funds to provide and expand quality, safe, and affordable housing? on covering the program overview. Next slide, please. And I'll leave it up to the commissioners to stop me if they have questions. On the housing program, this gives you an overall view of the different programs we run. Obviously, our largest program being the Housing Choice Voucher Program with almost 15,000 vouchers that we've issued. The next largest one is the emergency housing vouchers. Then we have the veteran affairs. In all total, we have about 17,000 vouchers. And if you take a look at the next slide, please. These are about, as you have the 17,000 vouchers, these speak to the number of participants we have. We have about 31,000 participants in the program, roughly about 7,800 families. in the program. And if we take a look at how this is spread throughout the city of San Francisco. Next slide, please. This will give you a map of what are the different districts where we are in. And as you can see from this map, obviously District 10, which covers Potrero Hill, Bayview, Hunters Point, is probably a large concentration, as is District 5, which is the Haight-Ashbury Western Addition a part of San Francisco. And if I take a step back beyond the operating budget, if I just take a look at the budget for SFHA, what I'd like to talk to the commissioners about is we have various revenue streams that come into the housing authority. One of those revenue streams is the housing assistance payments. And we'll dive down a little bit into this. The other is the administration fee and subsidy. And what that money does for the administration fee is it helps us run the individual programs that I just talked about with HCV, EHV, and the likes. And the next slide, please. And this gives you like a pie chart. If we take a look at all the different revenue streams, you can see housing assistance payment is the largest portion of it. The admin fee to run the program is under 10%. And the last part of it is the capital funds, which is roughly just used for public housing, mainly Plaza East.

Great. You said 95%. And then where does that 5% come from?

The 5% will be from other revenues that we get concerning the ground lease payments that we have with various properties. So to just go down what housing assistance payments are and why we really don't report it over here in the finance organization, this is really a pass-through. This is money that HUD pays us for the subsidy of the tenant's rent. And so we get this money from HUD, and this money flows directly through the landlords. We don't keep any of it. It's just a pass-through. Other than us being in a shortfall, if you're never in a shortfall, there's really nothing to report over here. And then really, the next slide is really around the admin fees. And so the admin fees is the next big bucket of revenues that we get. And what we can do with the admin fees is figure out in each year what are the key initiatives. that we would undertake and so in 2026 we've identified three key initiatives one is obviously as the commissioners may know and maybe even alerting the public that there is coming to an end the emergency housing vouchers that we issued out and so we are anticipating this will probably end by the fall of 2026 And so right now, we are working actively to move these emergency housing vouchers residents into public project. We've sent a letter to HUD. We're waiting for their approval that we can start that process. The next initiative that we have is the Veterans Affair housing support. And with VASH vouchers, there is a notice of funding opportunity that is passed by HUD. We have got a letter of support from the Veterans Affair, and we have submitted a letter of intent to HUD for participation in VASH. And the last one is really if we have excess funds to help out with the Faircloth to RAD conversion that is currently being undertaken by MOHCD. Next and moving on, I'd like to talk about the federal budget. And this is really talking about it at the national level. And this really pertains to housing assistance payments. So we have won the president's proposal, which is calling for drastic cuts, a 51% decrease in FY2026 over fiscal year 2025. Now, both the House and the Senate have rejected the President's bill and come up with their own proposal. As you can see in the House proposal of about $68 billion, this would roughly represent a 3% decrease from fiscal year 2025. And the Senate bill of about $73 billion will represent a 5% increase from 2025, but the proration will be less than the House bill. So it's a lot of inputs that go into those bills. And in the next, we've actually looked at the projection. Next slide, please. We've actually taken a look at what the HAP projections would look like for the Housing Choice Voucher. And you can see that we have the calendar year 25 projections of the HAP that we will get from HUD, about $417 million. And compared to our expenses, we anticipate a $20 million shortfall in 2025. If we go with the Senate proposal bill, we're expecting a shortfall of about $43 million. And if we go into the House bill, we will anticipate a reduction of $56 million. Either way, we have instituted measures to reduce this shortfall. I don't think we'll be able to eliminate it, but certainly definitely reduce it. And one of them is we certainly applied for a shortfall supplemental funding with HUD. The unfortunate thing is we will not hear back from HUD until around the November-December time frame. whether we'll even get any shortfall funding or even how much that shortfall funding will be. And then second, we're also complying with HUD required action plan. One is we've stopped issuing tenant-based vouchers. And then we've taken additional cost-saving measures, which is we've stopped the absorption of portability, meaning residents that come in from other locales into San Francisco previously were absorbing the expenses, and today we are now charging back the other locales. And then the last one is re-instituting interim re-examinations. As opposed to waiting for changes in income on the annual re-examination, we are now implementing those changes more frequently and those re-examinations more frequently, especially when it comes to family who report zero income. We also do have additional cost saving measures depending on the severity of the loss. And I think we'll discuss that when we get a better idea based on the passage of the bills.

We're going to take a pause on the presentation just to go back to the slide about the current proposal at the.

Yeah, I appreciate that, Mohamedou. I had just asked Mohamedou if I could ask a couple of questions during this.

Oh, sorry about that.

No, Roy, it's great. I very much appreciate it. But while we're on the slide, so appreciate the comment on the president's budget not being accepted by Congress. It's a very scary slide, this statement that it would eliminate key housing programs, including public housing and housing choice vouchers. I know you know what this means, but just I mean, the programs would be eliminated, but they would be dropped into, the president's proposal would drop these into larger block grant programs. But what really matters for folks who are watching at home or here is that the funding cuts are really what is terrible and scary about this program. I appreciate that commentary. The other question I just wanted to ask, and I realize this is a little bit off topic, but because we're in the budget conversation, there's a looming potential for a federal shutdown. And in the context of this conversation and the federal budget, I just wanted to ask, how does the potential for a federal shutdown affect the housing authority? Mambadou, if you want to take that. And is there something that we need to let residents be aware of in that context?

No. At this point, we are looking at a different scenario. We've been working with MOECD, the mayor's office, looking at the potential shutdown. So from the news we're getting right now, Basically, Congress has to pass a budget by 930. And at this point, since there's two competing budgets, they need to reconcile those two budgets. And looking like right now, the Senate just rejected the budget from the House. So it looks like we're heading for a shutdown. So for us, we've been talking to the local office. And the only information we received from the local office is for October payment. Those have been already obligated. So we'll be able to make those payments for the month of October. That's all we know at this point. In November, there's been some conflicting information. So we're waiting to hear more from HUD and the local office. So as we get some information and we're getting close to the deadline, then we'll work with the mayor's office to figure out the communication that can be sent out. But at this point, it's just a lot of conflict.

No, that's very helpful. And in the context of this, so that's for the program budget in terms of paying contractors and landlords and making sure that residents get their rent paid. And does it affect the operations of the staff? Are our offices open during a federal shutdown?

In a typical year, since the HDP program is funded for calendar year, it's a typical year all the funding are obligated. So in the past, when we had to shut down, HUD was able to still release the funding. But this is a different administration, different year, so there's no guarantee. I think there's no . So we are monitoring closely, so hoping that those funds are still going to be released, the operating subsidy we need to operate, and then the half portion for the landlord. So we're hoping at least through December we'll get those funding.

OK. So in the short term, residents and other contractors shouldn't expect a break in service and shouldn't be concerned if it lasts longer, we'll have to advise people otherwise. OK. Sorry to interrupt, Roy. I just came up as part of the thought process. I just wanted to make sure we covered it.

I apologize. Sometimes I race through these. Thank you.

Sorry to interrupt your presentation.

I believe we left off on the HAP rejection for the HCV. where we talked about the measures that we're planning to reduce the shortfall. And then on the next slide, these are the HAP projections for the emergency housing vouchers. Again, as you can see, for calendar year 2025, we have enough money to cover the expenses as far as paying the landlords and paying for the tenants we have. Again, the question will come into 2026 as to we are currently projecting a $7.5 million shortfall into that project. into that projection. And we're waiting for HUD approval to actually be able to move our EHV participants and put them at the top of the wait list for the project-based vouchers that we have.

Seems like a very responsible strategy.

And we'll also be working with city partners. We won't be able to move. We have about 930, but certainly we'll try our best to help each resident find housing. If you can go to the next couple of slides. And this really is the operating budget. And this is why I'm here, actually, to ask you for your approval for the operating budget for the San Francisco Housing Authority for fiscal year 2026. And in the housing operating budget, This is where the streams of revenue come from. One is the administrative fee. And this is a fee that helps us run each of our programs, HCV, EHV, et cetera. And you'll see below that how those administrative fees, the formulas that are used to derive those administrative fees. And then that other 5% of revenue that you were alluding to earlier, Commissioner Kim, is the other revenues. And we get that from the lease payments and the ground properties that we have with North Beach and other properties. As well, North Beach being the biggest, that's why I call it out here. And then the chargebacks we have. Any questions? And then on the next slide, We'll actually go through a budget scenario. And so we do have a case if the Senate bill passes. Not only will it affect HAP, but it will also affect the administrative fees. And in the Senate bill, we've used that as a base case, as a most likely case, that when we've talked to consultants and all that, have encouraged us to go forward with what's in the Senate bill package. And we're looking for a net loss of $3.1 million. And we'll go through the distinction between the two. And the worst case scenario will probably be the House bill, which will account for $8.8 million in revenues. And I figured if we were able to cover both those, at least have a strategy to be able to cover both those losses, then anything in between we'll also be able to cover. If we take a look at the base case scenario, Senate Bill, where I talked about, if we take a look at our revenues, our revenues will be down by $3 million. Now, our total expenses, even in fiscal year 2026, will be flat under the Senate Bill. But it's a little deceiving to think we haven't done any cost savings measures. If you look below, we've eliminated about 10 vacant positions. We're taking general expenses down by about $1.6 million. We figured the EHV actions will be reduced tremendously, almost by 50%. In total, we've taken about $4.4 million of expenses out of our program. The reason that expenses is flat year over year is because we have the offset in the medical and pension benefit retirees, which we anticipate being about $1.9 million. in the upcoming year. We expect the city employee compensation that we hadn't covered before, covering this year, roughly equating to about $1.1 million, and then an increase in the CVR contract for about $1.5 million. Let me stop there for questions. None? OK. And then on the next slide is just really covering the program at a very high level. As you can see, certain of the programs will face a loss. The ATV program mainly and the public housing program. Next slide, please. Most of these losses, we will be able to use our admin reserves in each of these programs to cover those losses. All right. Next slide, please. This shows you the Senate Bill in a pie chart. Next slide. We've asked to provide more than just tables, so we provided pie charts. Our next slide on the House bill side. And this is the House bill. And so we talked about the revenues on the Senate bill being down by $3.1 million. The revenues on the House bill will be down by about $10.2 million. And expenses will be down. Expenses will have an additional saving of $1.4 million. Again, we've run out as much cost out of the program as can be. And so these reductions are really along the management fee. Because the less revenues we get, the less management fees we can take. The management fee works at 20% of the admin fee. Less admin fee, less management fee. OK. Again, the next slide, please, just depicts for you on a pie chart. And then there's another slide that just, sorry. On this slide that you're seeing in front of you basically covers the program losses. Can you go back one slide? Go back two slides? covers the program losses. And under the House bill, you can see there's definitely a loss of $6.1 million on the HCV side. Even the central office cost center, where we run a lot of our back office operations, will incur a $1.1 million loss. And then public housing will be about the same loss. Just keep in mind that the Housing Choice Voucher Program under the Senate bill was only expecting a $1.5 million loss. This is expecting a $6.1 million loss.

Commissioner, so the budget right now that's for approval is based on the base scenario, so the Senate budget. So that's based on the information we have at this point. So we know by end of the month, we'll know if the budget is what budget's going to be approved by the chamber, or if there's going to be a continuing resolution. So after this deadline, if we need to come back and revise the budget, we'll come back. But at this point, the request is going to be based on the Bayes case scenario. So this slide was just to show you sort of the range towards the Bayes case. Once we have the final budget approved, if we need to revise the budget, we'll come back and request that approval.

Very helpful. Are there commissioner questions at this point about any of the particular items?

I do have just some question and comment. Sure. I got a little sort of like my brain sort of paused a second on the, I mean, so I've been in government over 22 years, have been through some very difficult bad times and of course some good times and now we're gonna kind of swing back to Not great budget time so I do appreciate having that laid out And I think it's important I'm also processing and talking this through as well, I think it's important that you started the presentation on the mission and the vision. And in these times when it appears even in sort of a better case scenario, it's still potentially some amount of cut. And so it's good to really start with what is the vision and mission in protecting stability and housing for residents and really sort of making core decisions around that. I do sort of remind myself that we are in the proposal stage. This is not an adopted budget, but this is what's proposed. And so in due diligence, you are and us sort of really thinking about, OK, given the news, how are we going to adjust? How are we going to continually sort of pivot and make decisions? So I do appreciate sort of laying out the scenario. I think it's important to be transparent, but also reassure that we're at the proposal stage, it hasn't been adopted, and we're running different scenarios to make sure that we account for them. Is that sort of a good depiction of where we are? I don't want to sugarcoat anything, but I also want to sort of, we have a lot of folks looking at this and making adjustments and making decisions based on the mission.

So right now, it's a proposal that we're requesting the board approval of this base budget that we have, because we need to have a budget for it.

I meant at the federal level. I mean, yes, this is a budget, but I meant at the federal level.

Yeah, at the federal level, there's the fact that there's a lot of information right now that we're getting on potentially a shutdown. Because last time we were in a situation, it was earlier this year, in March 2025. what Congress ended up doing is just a stopgap, a continuing budget for 10 months. So we didn't even have a budget. It was just like a roll over for prior year budget. So we also at this time also, we're at the point where they also need to figure out a new budget for 26 or another stopgap budget. So since we don't really have like a clear picture of where they're heading. We just need to prepare for it. So we run all this scenario. We know, depending on the final budget approval, that's going to impact us. We're going to feel it on both the hub side and the admin fee side. So based on that, we'll be able to adjust some of the plan we have and bring it back to the commission for approval.

Yes. But I mean, I think that a main point is there are scenarios being run. There is planning being done. There is sort of review of this being done so that we can make the best decisions possible based on what we know. And so it does sound as if as more information comes in, it will be brought before us just to sort of give us updates on how adjustments are being made. OK. Thank you. Thank you for running through the scenarios.

And actually, just to clarify that, If, or actually when, the federal government does adopt a budget or a continuing resolution, at that point, do you come back with an amended budget rather than make it at the staff level?

We'll come back, exactly. So we do provide a quarterly update, budget actual. And if there's a need to revise the budget, we'll come back with a new budget.

Great. I did have one question, but it'll probably come up in the next section, just about some of the particular revenue. Programmatic items so I can I can wait on my question. Do you have any questions? Mr. Pike any questions? Okay.

Okay. Thank you And then I think we'll cover the operating budget summary by program, right? It will start off with our largest program being the housing choice voucher program currently be a forecasting for revenue of twenty four point six million and for fiscal year 2026. And that will be down by $1.2 million from fiscal year 2025. And just to give you a sense of this, again, this is very formula driven. So it's based on, and keep in mind, the budget that we are presenting is the Senate bill passage. This is the budget we are proposing. That's what we are bringing out here in front of you. So all these programs is based on this passage of the Senate bill. Where we're looking at admin fees, we'll see an increase in admin fees, about 5.3%. The FSS funding increase of 280,000. And so we take a look at all those different factors of proration and all that, and that's how we come up to the revenue of about 24.6 million. On the expenses side, and what we talked about, the expenses will run ahead of what the revenues are. And the expenses of $26.1 million is an increase of $300,000 from 2025. But on an overall program basis, we will see a loss of $1.5 million for the Housing Choice Voucher Program.

So my question is actually your last bullet. Does that mean when it says HCV admin fee reserve of $31.2, does that mean that we're releasing $31.2 million? No.

No. So we have the $31.2 million in the bank. And so what we are saying is this $1.5 million loss that we are currently seeing will come out of that $31.2 million that we have.

Got it. So the $1.5 million can be covered by the $31.2. So that's where that money would come from. That way. Understood. OK. One other just technical question. The family self-sufficiency program, is that funded as a separate line item by HUD? In other words, it's not a voluntary item within?

They give a special funding every year, and they indicate what that funding is. So like in the House bill, for example, they are proposing that funding to drop by 11%. Got it.

Understood. Thank you.

And then just the next slide being the table slide, if we can. It covers the same topic. We'll move on to the emergency housing voucher slide. OK. Again, on the emergency housing voucher slide, we are running a balanced budget. And I can pause, please, if I need to go back.

I think you've covered this in the prior slides.

Correct. And so on the emergency housing voucher, we will run a balanced budget. We'll only run a balanced budget for fiscal year 2025. You can see even the revenues will be down by $400,000. So will expenses be down by $480,000. And really, the bigger question over here is what happens in next year of 2026, and how do we actively move these EHV participants over to the HCV program?

Roy, on that note, if people are successfully transitioned into the other voucher programs, does our revenue go down as well as our costs?

Well, the revenue for EHV will be non-existent. The revenue for HCV will go up. And the cost for HCV will go up.

OK, great.

OK. Next slide. Next slide is a table. covering the central office cost center. This is a program we run to run all our back office operations, IT, legal, accounting, Office of Program Excellence. Over here, you'll see a total forecasted revenue of $10.6 million, down about $330,000. And the forecasted expenses, again, this is just probably the numbers not rounding properly, so the expenses will roughly be flat. And here's where you can see we do incur higher costs for the city employee and the retiree costs, offset by the general expenses. And the employee compensation cost is roughly about $1.2 million. I've got $1 million here. And this was really an elimination, as we talked about, of all vacant positions that we had from last year. If there are no questions, I'll go on to the public housing slide. And on the public housing side, here we have a massive drop in revenue. This will probably be the last year of revenues for public housing. This is the asset repositioning fee. And we normally get this for three years after we've moved the public housing over to RAD, I believe. And so it's a declining scale every year, 75%, 50%, 25%. Unfortunately, it's worth saying that one of the AMs we never were able to get the off revenue. But you can see the revenues we'll get this year is only about $300,000. The expenses, which we still have, which is the pension, Withdrawal liability, that's about $1.9 million on an annual basis, and that expense will be covered through the reserves that we have and through the investments that we've talked about making with that money, with those reserves.

It may be confusing to people to hear you say, this will be the last year we will receive public housing dollars. So do you mind just sort of explaining that and unpacking that statement just so that people are less confused?

Sure. So on the public housing side, we have different apps. And I guess I should reword that. We have public housing in Plaza East and North Beach. Those public housing funds will not be affected. Those public housing funds will still get housing assistance payments from HUD to cover those expenses. That's what we call the HOPE VI program. These public housing funds, these vouchers have already been converted over into HCV. And so the fund that we get into public housing is just to do a lot of the cleanup of those different public housing sites that we had. This will be the last year of that. Unfortunately, the pension fund withdrawal liability from having to lay off all our craft people is what triggered that. That's where the $1.9 million cost is coming in.

I'll just add. So the public housing fund, we used to just track the revenue expenditure for the property that were managed by SFHA. So those were like . So pretty much all that portfolio has been converted into RAC. So at this point, we don't manage any public housing anymore directly. So the only public housing site we have remaining, the HOPE VI, and those were managed by third-party partners. So we have Norwich and Plaza. So that's tracked separately. There's a different HOPE VI fund.

No, that's great. I just, in the context of this budget presentation where you're talking about the president proposing to zero out public housing and so forth, I just think it's a little confusing. For folks that haven't followed this over the years, the housing authority's been pretty smart about moving a lot of what was public housing under formula programs that are actually paying more so that the operations and the upkeep of those buildings can be financed better or funded better. So while they were originally built as public housing, they now operate under different funding programs. And in the public eye, they may still be thought of as public housing. But when you're describing that, you're really describing it under the terms of a very specific funding program from the federal government. And I just want no one listening at home to be like, oh my god, this is the end of. the funding for these buildings. Just because it came up earlier in the presentation, it could be confusing.

Very salient point.

Yeah. All right.

And then the HOPE VI program is what Mamadou just alluded to. This is the public housing at Plaza East in North Beach. And the revenues we get from HUD is passed through directly onto these properties. And often case, every year we've been covering additional expenses to pick up their insurance bills, to pick up other expenses that they are not able to cover through the HUD funding. I think last year the insurance bill was about $800,000 that we covered, correct? How much? $800,000.

For which property?

This is for Plaza East. So we cover the insurance bills. Wow. And we actually cover more than the insurance bills. There's about another $400,000 of expenses that haven't been taken care of by Jon Stewart, and we'll end up using our reserves to also cover that. Mainstream property, again, this is non-elderly disabled, if I'm correct on this. This is about 220 units, 96% occupied. The funding on this and the expenses on this are very sporadic, very small aspect of our program. And the modern rehab is even smaller. This is 100% occupied. This is a single-room occupant-owning unit, and this is the ambassador hotel. that we have. I believe it's on Turk Street, if I'm not mistaken. So again, the last slide being the budget summary slide. This is what we're currently anticipating, about $40.2 million in revenue, $43.3 million in expenses. And then the very, very last slide for me is the staffing slide. And here you can see we have eliminated nine positions through the various different divisions or cost centers that we have.

Thank you, if I might. So I know that a lot of the work that the housing authority does is really through the dedicated efforts of various vendors, consultants, companies. Program managers, yep. And there are requirements of course to sort of monitor and ensure the different sort of aspects of each contract is being done. I'm just wondering where in this staffing, Does that take place and are those, do we feel like there's adequate resources allocated to that effort to ensure highest quality compliance?

Yes. We're a pretty lean team, but right now we have a team under the Office of Program Excellence and also the Housing Corporation that are really doing the core monitoring, both for CVR, PEM, and also for Bell, that's running the operating management at Plaza Ace and also Citadel Patrol. So we have a really lean team. And right now, we are working with the city, trying to figure out where we can leverage more resources from the city. Because we are a pretty lean team. And we do have a lot to do. The team is pretty stretched out right now, because there's a lot. There's a lot of transactions. We have a lot of contractors. On the HGV side, we have 150 staff, between PEM and CVR, working at Egbert. Yes, definitely.

We're looking into ways to involve more resources from the city I mean through the president perhaps this is working in one of the committee's but also it would be For me, it would be helpful to understand, of course, not the day-to-day operational piece, but just sort of broadly, how many contracts are there? How many vendors? How is the monitoring being done? Just sort of operationally, just to kind of see how that is going would be very helpful. The different stats that are being monitored over each one of them. I think would be very helpful to understand capacity and efficiency and effectiveness and how it's being monitored would be very helpful.

Could I make a friendly amendment to that? I would appreciate it. from past conversations we've had here, what would be really helpful is at a policy level, we're not necessarily concerned with the how you do it as much as the outcome. And I think the reason why we're confused sometimes as commissioners is because we kind of lack the regular dashboarding that would enable us to understand how that compliance work is occurring. And so if staff could do some thinking on what kind of dashboarding work is possible within Within the context of all that you described, Mamadi, we don't want it to supplant critical activity. But if we could have some sort of thought process over the next quarter about when it might be possible and what's possible, would that make sense?

For this, for us to sort of be not on the operational side, not in the how, because that's for you and other senior leadership to do, but really from the commission standpoint. What would be helpful to know? Does that make sense? Yes, it does. Yeah, OK, great. Yes.

OK, wonderful. And as I understand this last page, and I just want to make sure I'm understanding it, we've talked about this before, but just to say it back, in addition to the change at the executive level with, right now, a shared position with the Mayor's Office of Housing, which may change at some point, and the shared position in terms of legal counsel is the other two?

There's been some exploration on different options available, but right now, yeah, we don't have any.

When it says three positions through city shared services, I had assumed that was legal counsel, but is that in IT actually?

No, that's actually myself and two other staff that are currently serving different roles.

But the big shift on this is when we met earlier this summer or fall, I can't even remember. I guess we're in fall, so it must have been summer. and approved some thought process around giving staff the authority to move ahead and consider some IT investment. Now, in light of the federal budget and other considerations, it looks like That expansion is not what's being proposed for the 26 budget. And instead, we're rethinking the question of shared services with the city IT. That is, I think, a very thoughtful and useful budgeting step. And I, for one, appreciate and support that move. Any other questions on the staffing chart on the last page? I think it is a very lean staff and I'm sure that is very difficult. But I think my fellow commissioners' suggestion around sort of like how can we grow to understand sort of like what's the proper level of oversight, how can we understand it without getting into a role that is inappropriate for us as commissioners would be great.

Yeah. All right. Other comments or questions from our commissioners?

No? If not, Chris, I think we're ready to take public comment on the budget.

Is there any public comment in the room? Thank you.

And I just want to say that the presentation looks great. I appreciate the new color scheme, the fonts. Everything looks great.

We try to accommodate all.

For those of you who didn't see it earlier, this is a really improved color scheme. Thank you.

We can now open for public comment regarding item 8B. Is there any public comment in the room or online for item 8B?

That is available for public. Can we get copies of that?

There is a public copy on the table next to that. OK, thanks.

OK, great. I'm also curious. I hope the four people in the Office of Program Excellence are doing a good job.

Is there any additional public comment in the room or online via Zoom? OK, public comment for item 8B is now closed. Is there a motion to approve?

Motion to approve.

A second. I second. Roll call vote. Commissioner Pikes? Aye. Commissioner Kim? Aye. Vice President Lindo? Aye. President Shoemaker? Aye. So moved. Thank you. The next action item is item 8C, which is a resolution approving and authorizing the housing authority of the city and county of San Francisco to enter in a memorandum of understanding with Plaza East Housing Corporation to administer and implement oversight service agreements entered into by Plaza East Associates for the benefit of the Plaza East departments. subject to the condition that the authority shall be reimbursed by Plaza East Housing Corporation for staff, services, and expenses related to the administration and implementation to the extent financially feasible. And this is presented by Zawadi Lange.

ZAWADI LANGE- Hello again. OK, so this kind of piggybacks off of the earlier presentation. This is a request to obtain approval to enter into a memorandum of understanding with the Plaza East Housing Corporation, which is a California nonprofit public benefit corporation for the authority to provide staff assistance in overseeing service contracts executed by the corporation as the managing general partner of Plaza East Associates LP, which is a California limited partnership and the ownership entity of Plaza East Apartments. Plaza East requires extensive contract management and contractor oversight. So the scope of staff assistance is provided in the Memorandum of Understanding, which has been attached as attachment A to the staff report. So part of that scope is that the authority shall provide staff assistance to the corporation in its capacity as the managing general partner of the partnership to meet its obligations as set forth in the partnership agreement and in the mixed finance documents. The authority would provide staff to assist the corporation in conducting contract negotiation and management and contract oversight for third party contractors on site, providing property management services. The current property manager of Plaza East is Bell Properties, as well as other professional service agreements that the corporation might enter into for the betterment of Plaza. For instance, there are There are construction repairs happening currently on vacant units on site, and there will be a presentation about that as well. But to provide the oversight of all contractors that will be on site as we move forward with repair efforts at Plaza, The authority shall provide staff to effectuate the withdrawal of MBA Urban Development Company, which is the current developer general partner of the partnership, and to also notify HUD, the Tax California Allocation Commission, and any other required lenders of the withdrawal. the authority would take the lead in preparing and issuing and overseeing the request for proposals to select a new developer partner for the ownership entity once it becomes appropriate to resume redevelopment of the property. And then we would provide staff on an as-needed basis upon the request of the corporation to meet any of its obligations and responsibilities related to the project. There are obviously several contractual agreements where the partnership has certain deliverables that it needs to do in its capacity as an ownership entity, such as budgeting for the apartments. provide its budget to the authority. Because at this stage, the authority's actual official capacity with Plaza is simply as the lessor to the ground lease. And we provide the funds when they come to us from HUD to the ownership entity. And that's pretty much it. But now that the authority's affiliates are making up the entirety of the current structure of the ownership entity, there are quite a lot of things that need to be done to fulfill those obligations. And the corporation does not have any staff to fulfill those obligations. So the authority, if this is approved to do this MOU, the authority and any agent or employee of the authority would be deemed at all times an independent contractor wholly responsible for the manner in which it performs the services and work required under the MOU. And the authority and its agents and employees would be liable for their own acts and omissions in the course of their work. So we are trying to make it clear that we are seeking this path simply because the ownership entity has no staff and it needs staff to meet its obligations under the various contracts so that we can keep the ownership entity viable and for the benefit of the residents so that they don't see any change. But in acknowledgment of the fact that these are affiliates, we are not one and the same. The authority and the affiliates are not one and the same. And so just to provide that separation. Any questions?

Any questions? Good job. So I do have a question. And I'm going to direct it actually to counsel, if you don't mind. So when we last heard this item, we continued it. And I think one of the reasons we continued it is because I had some questions about liability. And I think staff has moved on this. And in this staff report, it speaks to the question of indemnification and liability. And I want to ask you as counsel, Mr. Crute, the indemnification, as I read it, joint indemnification, the parties indemnify each other for situations involving gross negligence. And I guess my question, and I'm not a lawyer, so I'm going to ask this in a very unlawyerly way, is that the right standard of indemnification for this particular service agreement? In other words? We're stepping in, again, to provide services to this property that has its long history with the housing authority, to provide services. And I agree with the way this was stated by staff, which is that we obviously need to do a competent job and offer professionalized services and not make unprofessional mistakes. But is gross negligence the right level of indemnification protection for us at this level?

Well, of course, some of it does depend on what the assets are of the corporation, which are not extensive. Just an indemnification means there's no defense. And typically, if you just make a mistake, which is negligence, having no defense about whether there was contributory negligence on the other side and all that doesn't seem all that reasonable in a relationship like this. So the idea here is that the indemnifications happen because somebody really should have known there was a problem or somebody wasn't watching the store and somebody misappropriated funds. Those are the sort of things where the indemnity would happen. Otherwise, it would just be a regular piece of litigation about you should have done this and you didn't do it. So it doesn't mean people aren't liable. It just means they haven't given up their defenses on something. And because usually negligent cases are settled. There usually is a muddy situation.

If I could sort of reinterpret this in a non-lawyerly way, it sounds like it is a reasonable standard for this particular relationship.

Yeah, I think this is what makes sense here.

Great. That's all I wanted to know. Thank you. Much appreciated.

Thank you.

Okay, we can now move on to public comment for item 8C. Is there any public comment for item 8C in the room or on Zoom? Okay, public comment for item 8C is now closed. Is there a motion to approve?

Motion to approve.

A second? Aye, second. Roll call vote. Commissioner Pikes? Aye. Commissioner Kim? Yes. Vice President Lindo? Aye. President Shoemaker? Aye. So moved. Thank you. Moving on to item 8D, which is the resolution approving and authorizing the acting executive director of the housing authority of the city and county of San Francisco to execute amendment number one to contract number 25-0004, increasing the contract amount by an additional $1 million with DC construction for the authority's public housing capital improvement vacant units repairs at Plaza East for a total contract amount not to exceed $3 million. And this is presented by Karina Suarez, the procurement analyst for the authority. KARINA SUAREZ.

Good afternoon, commissioners. I'm Karina Suarez, procurement analyst at the San Francisco Housing Authority. And this resolution is to amend contract number 25-004, increasing the contract amount by an additional $1 million with DC construction for the authority's public housing capital improvement vacant units repairs at Plaza East for a total contract amount not to exceed of $3 million. DC Construction was contracted by a public procurement process in November of 2024 and entered into a contract with the authority in February of 2025. They have started on phase one of the rehabilitation of the vacant units at Plaza East. The need for the budget adjustment to the contract is to accommodate unforeseen requirements, project scope expansion, and update cost estimates. As the project progressed and in phase one of rehabilitation, additional units became available that were not initially anticipated. Some were previously under property management while others transitioned to vacancy. These additional units needed to be added to the scope and rehabilitation, which increased the original scope of work being done at the Plaza East Apartments. The proposed changes adding 10 additional vacant units for rehabilitation are essential to ensure successful completion of the project and alignment with current organizational priorities. While the contractors remain within the estimated 35 units outlined in the original RFP, the level of repairs and replacements required has been significantly greater than anticipated. Conditions encountered included extensive dry rot, subfloor failure, water intrusion damage, and widespread wears of finishes and fixtures. In several units, major components such as plumbing, cabinetry, and flooring required full replacements rather than minor repairs originally assumed. The revised scope includes an additional six new units to the project, minor scope modifications to three existing units, and one unit required leak-related repairs. I have with me today the project manager, Mason Wilson, from DC Construction, as well as Elizabeth Brady from Oak Brook, who is the rehabilitation coordinator consultant that has been helping us with this project, if you guys have any questions in regards to this. Are there any questions?

Please remind me how many units? Is it 10 units? It's 10 additional units, yes. 10 additional units, which is the request for the $1 million extension for 10 units? That is correct.

How many units?

Sorry, was there additional presenters for this item?

No, just if you guys have any other questions, we do have DC construction. And if you guys have specific questions.

We do have the general contractor DC construction here in the room. The plan is that we'll bring them back next quarter to do a more detailed presentation on the works that have been done and share some pictures. But we just wanted to have them here today as well, just in case you have any questions.

It would just be helpful to understand what the general scope for these, since it's a $100,000 unit scope. It's pretty significant.

Sure. I'll have a high level, not high level.

So we have

Ten units receiving the same treatment as the units we've been in contract for. The scope includes new flooring, full unit paint, new cabinetry countertops, kitchen sink and faucets, in some cases bathroom toilets that have failed, and also bathroom vanity fixtures. And that's the high-level majority of our scope. Thank you.

Is there any additional comments from commissioners?

And the cost actually tracked with our initial estimate. So compared to when we did the initial work scope with Oak Brook, Elizabeth, we looked at some comparable. And this is tracked in line with that, even on the city side. This is the typical cost we have .

OK, we can now open for public comment regarding item 8D. Is there any public comment in the room or online via Zoom? OK, public comment for item 8D is now closed. Is there a motion to approve? Motion to approve. A second? I second. Roll call vote. Commissioner Pikes?

Aye.

Commissioner Kim?

Yes.

Vice President Lindo? Yes. President Shoemaker? Aye. So moved. Thank you. Last item is item 8E, which is the resolution approving and authorizing the acting executive director of the Housing Authority of the City and County of San Francisco to execute amendment number 5 to contract number 21-0008-1, extending the term with Paul Edwards Management for an additional year and increasing the contract amount by an additional $200,000. for a new commutable contract amount not to exceed $3,900,300 for the administration and operation of the emergency housing voucher for the Housing Authority of the City and County of San Francisco. And this is presented by Kendra Crawford, Housing Operations Director.

Thank you. Good evening, commissioners. The purpose of this action item is to ask the board to approve the Fifth Amendment to the contract between the Authority and Paul Edwards Management and Consulting LLC. to exercise the fifth option of the contract to extend the term year, which was entered into on September 30, 2024, and is set to expire on September 30, 2025, and add additional funds of $200,000. with a cumulative total contract amount not to exceed $3,900,300 for the continued administration and operation of the authority's emergency housing voucher program. And for some history, on July 13, 2021, the board approved and authorized the chief executive officer to enter into a contract with PIM effective July 19, 2021, through resolution 0025-21. The EHV program was started on March 11, 2021, when President Joseph Biden signed the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 into law, which provides over $1.9 trillion in relief to address the continued impact of COVID-19 pandemic on the economy, public health, state and local governments, individuals, and businesses. ARPA provides $5 billion in funding for emergency housing vouchers, providing rental assistance for individuals and families who are experiencing homelessness or at risk of homelessness. The supplemental funding is allocated through the EHV program, which is similar to the HCV program. And through the EHV, the US Department of Housing and Urban development is funding 70,000 EHVs to public housing agencies across the housing authority. We currently have 925 EHVs housed at this time. This contract provides PIM to administer the EHV program by continuing to do annual recertifications and interims, process RTAs for moves, work with landlords, and meet weekly with service providers to ensure performance of all core functions and performance through the EHV program. This includes compliance with applicable regulations, guidance, and directives maintained in the Code of Federal Regulations, program handbooks, notices, local and state laws, industries, best practices, and other policy. The contract was for an initial one-year term with options at the authority's discretion and extend for up to four additional one-year periods for a maximum total of five years. PIM has performed the work assigned satisfactory and work remaining to be accomplished. The authority will continue to plan to prevent any gaps in service to the vulnerable population served. And then there's also a... a line to show you each amendment that was done. And I won't go through that. The authority staff now request that the board approve Amendment Number 5 to Contract 21-0008-1 to extend the term of contract through September 30 of 2026 and for the additional funding below. If you want me to go through the amendments and the amounts, I will. OK. But other than that, are there any questions?

Just for clarification, it's a five-year contract. The initial one, I think there might, is there, was it 500,000? Not 500 million, right? 500,000. And then there were five amendments. Doesn't that make it a six-year contract?

There were already four amendments, the initial, and then the amendments were year one, year two, year three, year four. So the initial contract, The initial contract amount was $500,000, but we have the amendments were only done.

So contract one, the original amount is $500,000. That's not year one, $500,000. So then amendment one was within the same year?

Yeah, so the first amendment was actually just to add some funding.

Immediately after, so it was at the same time.

It was within the same year, yeah.

Within the same year. So it's a five-year contract with six amendments.

Yeah, and one of the amendments was not to extend. One happened within the same year. Yeah, it was just to add some funding.

Thank you.

Any other questions?

OK.

If there's no additional comments from commissioners, we can now open for public comments regarding item 8E. Is there any public comment in the room or online via Zoom? Okay, public comment is now closed for item 8e. Is there a motion to approve?

I motion to approve.

I second.

Second.

Roll call vote. Commissioner Pikes? Aye. Commissioner Kim? Aye. Vice President Lindo? Aye. President Shoemaker? Aye. So moved. Thank you. Moving on to item 9, which is the commissioner's comment and report. Are there any commissioners that would like to provide additional comment?

Yeah, I'd just like to take a minute and thank everybody in attendance for being here. Your being here is important to you, and we have ears to listen to your concerns. As I leave this board, I just want to say that it's been a rewarding experience for the nine years that I've sat on this commission. I want to thank everybody at this authority for all of the hard work that you do and continue to do in making this one of the best housing authorities in the nation. I want to give a shout out to the finance people, Mamadou and Brother Lobo, for all of the good work that you do, all the extensive work that you do, all the fancy slides that you put together. Thank you. Diane's not here, but I'd like to thank her. She's a quiet storm here. She sits in that chair. She doesn't say much. But when she does, it makes a whole lot of sense. Diane, if you're listening, thank you. I also want to thank, I don't see her. There she is. Kendra. Kendra and I go way back. And I just want to say I'm so proud of you and the progress that you have made to be where you are today in this authority. Much appreciated. And I'd like to thank my fellow commissioners for your inputs, your knowledge. your zeal to get answers for questions that sometimes are a bit confusing. Thank you. Lastly, I'd like to thank Tanya Lidejew, who directed this authority for seven years and brought us from a troubled agency to a high performer. Although she's not here, her efforts have not gone unrecognized. This housing authority is a better housing authority because of the work that she put in. Tanya, if you're listening, thank you. And lastly, to Doug. As we hand off the leadership of this commission to you, I wish you best luck and hope that you enjoy your stay here. Thank you.

Thank you.

Is everybody here? Thank you.

I just want to say I'm going to miss my partner as far as motions to approve and the second. I got to find another person to say I second now. Because we're partners there. Since I came in 2018, I've been motioned to approve. I second. It's always been me and him. But I'm sure they'll find someone to replace you. But you won't be replaced. You are a very, very, very good commissioner. And I thank you for the little wisdom and little nitpicks you gave me through the years to get me through. I remember the first time I was late for a commission meeting. This is the only second time I've been late, y'all. Oh, you see this? Don't worry about it. It was about three years ago. I was freaked out. I was late. But it was not my fault. It was the Uber driver. But I was so freaked out that I held up this meeting for five minutes. And he just, don't worry about it. You ain't the first commissioner. Been late. I mean, I just love it. I just love your whole spirit. I'm going to really miss you. Every now and then, come by and sit in the audience and say, hey. I know you're not going to do that. But just, you know, give us a little hey. But best in your endeavors.

I'll make a deal with you. I'll come out to Sunnydale.

OK.

Watch you do your magic.

Yeah, just ask for moms. Everybody in Centerdale calls for moms. Say, where's moms? They'll get you.

It's a shorter trip.

Oh, OK. Good luck in your future.

Thank you. Commissioner Lindo, you have been so kind. and welcoming and patient. And it has truly been an honor to learn from you and to serve with you because consistently you always have led with your values and done what is right by the residents and always ensuring safety. And I'm going to miss serving alongside you. And you will be so missed in your perspective and your love for the community and for the residents. And you leave behind, please know you leave behind a legacy and a seat that will not be replaced. So I wish you well, Commissioner.

Thank you, and keep listening to those radio codes.

I will. I'm learning those radio codes.

And I also want to say thanks to Commissioner Lindo. I unfortunately did not get a chance to serve with you as long as some others. But I appreciate all that you did. Nine years is an incredibly long time to serve on a commission. And I know you served the city for many years before that as an officer of the police department and a member of our community. So thank you for everything that you do for San Francisco.

Thank you.

And just one last commissioner comment. Relative to Marianne's neighborhood of Sunnydale, we're going to be celebrating the grand opening of a couple of buildings and some new neighborhood serving retail across from the Hub on October 30. If you're in the neighborhood, I think it's going to be a very exciting day. And for those of you who haven't been out to Sunnydale, it's a fabulous community center. The gym's not open yet, Marianne, is it?

Not yet.

It's going to be open soon. Reckon Park is opening a new gym out there. But on October 18th will be the one-year anniversary of the Sunnydale Hub. And there's going to be a big pumpkin celebration. So if you're in the neighborhood or not and you've got kids and you want to bring them by and go through the maze or carve a pumpkin or just come out and enjoy, please do. I think that one is from 11 to 2 on the 18th. Did you want to say something to Commissioner Linda? Yes, I'd like to say- As long as it's not profane.

No, I wanted to thank you for when I first started as president of CCSD. You're one of the first people that ever welcomed me and your outside chair work when you actually offered to come and speak to our Commission, and I just really appreciate your wisdom and your decisions throughout the time we've worked together. And I am stuck on calling you Frank, so I have to formally apologize for calling you Frank. It must be my pet name for you or something. So thank you, Commissioner Leroy, for laying down. Thank you.

Thank you.

I just wanted to come up and say I am going to miss you. We have come a long way together. Started off when I was the manager in Sunnydale. And I remember you were like, this little person is in charge of all of that? And so you made sure that I was supported by your officers. And we developed a really close relationship, which I really always treasure. and was so happy to see you on our commission, so sad to see you leave. I do understand. And I hope that you retire now for real and be able to enjoy yourself and enjoy your time. I'm grateful for everything that you've done, all of the support, all of the encouragement, because we need that. When we were coming, you saw me grow up. And so in that growing up, we need that encouragement. We need people to tell us that we're doing good and that we're in the position that we should be in and all of those things. So I appreciate that. I love you. I'm grateful for you. Thank you for everything. Thank you.

Well, Novo, do you have a comment or you're just on it? That's good. All right. All right. I think with that, we are ready to adjourn.

Item 10 is adjournment. President Shoemaker, may you please move to adjourn the meeting?

So moved.

Meeting is now adjourned. The time is 5.41 PM. All right. All right, Chris.